92 by the adverse party that he fraudulently offered to prove another’s chattels his own. And because the claim of the said Walter was regarded with suspicion since he was a person of ill fame and had not chattels of such value, and since (it was suspected) that he did this by fraud and collusion, it was awarded that the truth thereof should he inquired by a good inquest, as to whether the said horse was his at the time of its attachment or not. Thereupon the inquest was chosen, which comes and says on oath that the said Walter Danes earnested the said horse by a Clod's ])enny from the said Austin in the vill of Tempsford on the Sunday before the attachment, which was made on the following Tuesday, but that this was done to defraud the said William of Tempsford and by collusion, in order that the said William might he deprived of his chattels; and judgment was put in respite until it should he more fully discussed by the merchants. And the merchants of the various communities and others being convoked in full court, it is awarded that since the said Walter Danes never put himself on the said inquest, which iiupiest was taken by the steward merely »ex officio*, and since according to the law merchant the said Walter had sufficiently concluded the purchase of the said horse by giving a Clod’s penny to the said Austin, the said Walter shall come threehanded with good and elected and credible men to prove that the said horse is his and that at the time of the attachment the said Austin had neither art nor part in the said horse. And the said Walter comes and makes his law sufficiently. Therefore let him go quit thereof with the said horse, and the said William is in mercy for his false claim; he is pardoned.* Gegen die von »the steward's inquest* gestiitzten Behauptungen des Gläubigers, dass der vorgebliche Eigentiimer in betriigerischer Absicht auftrat, um im Einverständnis mit dem Schuldner die Vollstreckung zu verhindern, hrachte der Eigentiimer zwei fiir den damaligen Prozess charakteristische Einwände vor. Teils hatte er sich nicht unter diesen »inquest* gestellt. der nur ex officio von dem fraglichen Beamten vorgenommen worden war (»Walterus . . petit quod non elongetur de equo suo predicto per inquisicionem ex officio senescalli acceptam in quam se non posuit*), teils hatte er das Pferd von einemAussenstehenden gekauft, ehe es gepfändet worden war. Dem Rechtsfall wurde vermutlich
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=